As you can see over on the right, I tweet. At last count I was following 53 other tweeters and a misguided 237 were following me. I enjoy it and I learn things I likely would not otherwise learn. But there are limits and sometimes the hype is more than I can bear. Today's example comes from the May issue of Research World, a trade pub for which I have a good deal of respect. There is an article describing how social media helped rescues in Haiti and Chile after the earthquakes. The claims made include some real whoppers:
- Twitter lists compiled by major news organizations "galvanized an immediate reaction worldwide, resulting in a flood of resources to the region."
- "Tweeters used Twitter for purposes such as convincing the US Air Force to let multiple aid planes from Doctors Without Borders land at the Port-au-Prince airport after initially being denied access."
And the evidence for these claims is? Well, at least we know that "most of the early news sources were Twitter-based" because a microblogger in the region told us so. And then the piece goes on to champion something called "internet-enabled surround sound."
In its defense, the article has some nice data on use of social media in Latin America that can be hard to come by, even if in this case it's spun to make some questionable points about just how penetrated social media is in society at large. But it's essentially a marketing piece and a bit over the top at that. I worry that not everyone will realize that.